On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 20:50:19 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:13:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 21:45:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 6/5/2022 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 10:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 6/5/2022 5:04 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>> >>>>>>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>> >>>>>>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>> >>>>>>>>> numbers are the direct result.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>> >>>>>>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> About that:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> [He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> ... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>> Yup. A weapon of war...
>> >>>>>> Just like
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
>> >>>>>> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
>> >>>>>> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
>> >>>>>> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
>> >>>>>> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
>> >>>>>> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
>> >>>>>> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
>> >>>>>> cartridge
>> >>>>>> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
>> >>>>>> Carbines were purchased by the Army
>> >>>>>> The .45 caliber Model 1884
>> >>>>>> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
>> >>>>>> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
>> >>>>>> The 1903 Springfield
>> >>>>>> The M1 Garand Rifle
>> >>>>>> The Thompson submachine gun
>> >>>>>> The M3 submachine gun
>> >>>>>> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
>> >>>>>> The M4 rifle
>> >>>>>> The "M-16"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
>> >>>>>> pistols
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
>> >>>>>> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
>> >>>>>> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
>> >>>>>> is nearly unbelievable.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only. It replaced the Thompson.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Well, firstly, I was responding to Frank's argument, saying that Yes,
>> >>>> the M-16 is a war weapon and General So and so said so.
>> >>>> And I pointed that By his and the Generals description "war weapons"
>> >>>> have existed in the U.S. since at least the 1700's.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I didn't mention it but the Civil war, a 4 year war, fought largely
>> >>>> with muzzle loading, black powder, weapons, resulted in the highest
>> >>>> level of war deaths in the history of the U.S.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
>> >>>>>> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
>> >>>>>> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nope, I'll stand by my comment. And while I didn't hob-nob with
>> >>>> Generals "down tha O Club" I was in a position, from time to time, to
>> >>>> watch senior officers work and in broad terms they deal with the Big
>> >>>> Picture.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I was "NCOIC of the Statistic Section of Work Load Control", or in
>> >>>> simple terms the guy in charge of the section that kept track of what
>> >>>> was going on in the maintenance division of an Air Force Wing - a Wing
>> >>>> being essentially all the operational aircraft on a base.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Basically I kept track of, logged, and reported, all the maintenance
>> >>>> being performed on all the aircraft. And as a result the reports I
>> >>>> made went to the Maintenance Manager, a full colonel, and by extension
>> >>>> to the Wing Commander and to Air Division, probably a Brigadier
>> >>>> General..
>> >>>>
>> >>>> These people deal in percentages. If, for example my morning report
>> >>>> showed that Squadron A's airplane's in commission was , oh say, 89% of
>> >>>> the total assigned, I got called in to the Colonel... "Why is A
>> >>>> Squadron so low?" "Well Sir there is a problem with the squelch valve
>> >>>> on 6 of their airplanes, and Base Supply doesn't have any new ones".
>> >>>> "Well, what is being done to rectify the matter?"
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In short the Maintenance Commander doesn't have a clue of what a
>> >>>> Squelch Valve, nor does he care. He wants the problem identified and
>> >>>> solved.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But I wasn't objecting to any claims. And I am aware that various
>> >>>> versions of the various models have different firing options.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I fired the M-16 when the A.F. first issued them, 1960-something, and
>> >>>> frankly I thought it was a POS :-) This was the original model without
>> >>>> the bolt closer and of course when I put the magazine in I carefully
>> >>>> let the bolt slid forward and of course the damned thing wouldn't go
>> >>>> into battery and wouldn't shoot.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
>> >>>>>> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
>> >>>>>> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
>> >>>>>> Military.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No, he was a Major General, a two star. He entered the Academy in 1968
>> >>>> and retired in 2006. 38 years. So his performance was probably best
>> >>>> rated as ordinary. Or at least his decorations would indicate that he
>> >>>> never led troops in combat.
>> >>>
>> >>> "He never led troops in combat," so you pretend he has no knowledge of
>> >>> guns.
>> >>>
>> >>> For comparison, John, you said your qualifications were these:
>> >>>> I was "NCOIC of the Statistic Section of Work Load Control", or in
>> >>>> simple terms the guy in charge of the section that kept track of what
>> >>>> was going on in the maintenance division of an Air Force Wing - a Wing
>> >>>> being essentially all the operational aircraft on a base.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Basically I kept track of, logged, and reported, all the maintenance
>> >>>> being performed on all the aircraft.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't doubt the importance of such a position; but it sounds like you
>> >>> never led troops in combat either. And your top rank was ... what,
>> >>> again? Was it not far, far below this general's?
>> >>>
>> >>> I admit, I'm not an expert on military rank. But to me, it looks like
>> >>> you're far below his qualifications, based on your own standards.
>> >>>
>> >>> You've personally disqualified yourself from commenting.
>> >>
>> >> Well, silly old Frankie exhibits his ignorance of the Military.
>> >> (again?)
>> >>
>> >> My position of NCOIC of the Statistics Section has nothing to do with
>> >> combat, but it did have something to do with me having contact with
>> >> senior officers and knowing what they deem important.
>> >> Which was the point of the discussion (Please try to pay attention)
>> >>
>> >> As for leading troops in combat? Well, the Air Force doesn't allows
>> >> enlisted men to do that but so what. My comment that from his
>> >> decorations he had never led troops in combat was a comment about the
>> >> Army. Few Army officers of senior rank were not, at some time in their
>> >> career, in command of a combat unit.
>> >
>> >You disregarded that general's assessment of the AR-15 platform because
>> >you said he never led troops in combat.
>> >
>> >I'm disregarding your assessements for precisely the same reason:
>> >because you've never led troops in combat. You have disqualified yourself.
>> >
>> >Don't dance around, Tommy-like, and pretend you didn't say what you
>> >said. The internet remembers.
>> Yup, the Internet remembers.
>> Your General denounced the AR as a war weapon and I agreed. Actual
>> quote "Yup. A weapon of war..."
>>
>> I then went on to state that from the earliest days of the U.S. war
>> weapons have been produced and civilians have been allowed to own
>> them.
>
>Somewhere in the last 250 years of US war fighting, the weapons of war have changed a little bit. Up to about 1900, the Spanish American war, the same weapons used by soldiers and civilians was essentially the same. Pistols and rifles. And swords and knives. Military did have cannons and the Gatling gun. But about 1900 Hiram Maxim invented the first practical machine gun. And war and weapons changed from then on. The rifles used in WW1 were about the same as civilian rifles. But in WW2, the rifles and machine guns used by soldiers and civilians were drastically different. From WW2 onwards, things are not even remotely similar between military and civilian firearms. So saying civilians and soldiers in the Revolutionary War and Civil War used the same guns is not applicable to today. Or even the last 70 years.
>

Nope. Nobody said that "civilians and soldiers in the Revolutionary
War and Civil War used the same guns" nor was there any intimation
that technology hasn't improved "war weapons". Of course, weapons from
250 years ago were different then today's.

The point is/was that the public had access to current "war weapons"
from 177-something.

So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!" after all the
most modern weapons available have been in the hands of civilians
throughout U.S. history.

And as for technology? Well, learn how to shoot a smooth bore musket
and then the M1 Garand. Perhaps 3 shots a minute (I believe the
standard British Army musket firing rate) to 40 - 50? An increase of
15 times? Hot Diggity Dog!
So take the M1 - say 40-50 shots a minute and multiply by 15.... 675
rounds per minute, or more or less what the M16 fired.
--
Cheers,

John B.